murphys_law
Member
Did anyone consult with the citizens of Missouri or was the Democratic process hijacked like it was in New York under the latest hysteria.
This is a very pro gun state......
Did anyone consult with the citizens of Missouri or was the Democratic process hijacked like it was in New York under the latest hysteria.
That would probably be the Civil War, which made it clear to all states that the Union (now capitalized) was no longer bound by common-purpose so much as blood. Personally, I don't care for the road this "nullification" stuff takes us down; I'd much rather we have a legit, frank, Constitutional Debate using the proper amendment process rather than provoke a Constitutional Crisis where we start ripping apart at the seams and subverting our processes.But some were the power was revised
Did anyone consult with the citizens of Missouri or was the Democratic process hijacked like it was in New York under the latest hysteria.
What absolute drivel. When has a federal court ever ruled anything of the sort?Dean Weingarten said:The Supremacy clause cannot legitimately be used to abrogate the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was passed after the Supremacy clause, and therefore supercedes it.
This whole idea of states "nullifying" federal law is, in itself, a nullity. All it amounts to is politicians trying to make cheap political points.
Not being a constitutional lawyer, it will be interesting to see how this goes.
If the state, county, and local law enforcement agencies won't enforce any federal firearms laws, I see this as significant. Depending on how far this is taken.
If the BATF wants to conduct a raid, they are on their own. No state, or local back up. What happens if a guy is wanted for a firearms violation and is fleeing; does this mean that the locals will refuse to stop him or participate in his apprehension ?
If someone is arrested for another crime and there are also illegal guns involved, appearently the local police won't even notify any federal agency ?
What if a nationwide hunt is on for a guy that is wanted for firearms violations and the MO police know where he is, do they just ignore it ?
Archangel14 said:I am a lawyer who deals with constitutional issues just about every day. No, this won't hold up. There's a thing called the "Supremacy Clause." Essentially, every federal law that is applicable to the states will supersede contradicting state law, assuming the federal law is constitutional. That's a very basic take on it, but I hail Misso, as they sent a VERY strong message to federal legislators.
And that will be a question for the federal courts. See post 21.MJU1983 said:Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.
Frank Ettin said:And that will be a question for the federal courts. See post 21.
The resolution of the General Assembly [the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
1. Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party; that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled “An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.